progress report to the g20 los cabos, mexico june 2012 · progress report to the g20 los cabos,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Progress Report to the G20
Los Cabos, Mexico
June 2012
2
MOVING TO THE NEXT PHASE
A PROGRESS REPORT TO G20 LEADERS BY THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY
AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES1
The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (the Global Forum)
reported the findings of its first set of 59 Peer Reviews to the G20 Leaders at their November 2011 Cannes
Summit. That report showed a high level of cooperation among members and a good level of compliance
with the internationally agreed standard, although it also identified a number of unresolved deficiencies. In
their Final Communiqué, the G20 leaders welcomed the progress made and urged all jurisdictions,
particularly those which did not qualify for a Phase 2 review, to take the necessary actions to tackle the
deficiencies identified. In February 2012, and again at their meeting in April 2012, the G20 Finance
Ministers and Central Bank Governors asked the Global Forum to report on the outcomes of the new set of
published reviews.
Since the last report sent to the G20 in November 2011, the Global Forum has made steady progress
towards its goal of increased transparency. Twenty peer reviews, including three combined reviews, have
been published, containing 149 new recommendations. This brings the total number of published reports to
79. In addition, 6 new supplementary reports have been adopted which have fully addressed 33
recommendations. Another 17 peer reviews have been launched. Jurisdictions continue to report significant
changes following Phase 1 recommendations and as a result 2 supplementary reviews are underway. One
of the clearest signs of progress has been the response of jurisdictions in respect of which the Global
Forum has determined that changes must be made before they can undergo a Phase 2 review.
The membership of the Global Forum continues to grow and we have 3 new members, Lithuania, Latvia
and Tunisia. With these new jurisdictions joining, the membership of the Global Forum now stands at 109.
The interest in the membership is at an all time high and several new jurisdictions are expected to join in
the coming months.
This report takes into account the progress made in the work of the Global Forum since its November 2011
report. It also marks the beginning of the second phase of the Global Forum’s peer review process.
The peer review process examines the legal and regulatory framework of member jurisdictions (Phase 1
reviews) and the actual implementation of the international standard of transparency and exchange of
information in practice (Phase 2 reviews). The review outputs include determinations regarding the
availability of any relevant information in tax matters (ownership, accounting or bank information), the
appropriate power of the administration to access the information and the administration’s capacity to
deliver this information to any partner which requests it. When jurisdictions report on changes that are
likely to significantly address the deficiencies identified in the peer review, the Global Forum conducts
supplementary reviews which examine and report on these changes.
With 79 jurisdictions already reviewed, and 17 other reviews underway, the Global Forum is reaching the
end of the Phase 1 reviews. The stand-alone Phase 2 reviews, which will examine what happens in
practice, are being launched in the second quarter of 2012. These reviews will provide in-depth
investigations into the procedures and resources available for the exchange of information. In contrast to
Phase 1, overall ratings on jurisdictions’ compliance with the standards will be provided once a
representative subset of Phase 2 reviews is completed. It is expected that the first stand-alone Phase 2
1 This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city
or area.
3
reviews will be published in 2013 and that more than 50 Phase 2 reviews will be completed by the end of
the same year.
Level of cooperation
Overall, the quality of cooperation within the Global Forum has been very satisfactory, with new members
joining and more and more jurisdictions implementing policy and legislative changes that address the
deficiencies identified in their reviews. The membership of the Global Forum, which stood at 106 in
November 2011, has now increased to 109. The quality of cooperation is also attested by the growing
number of jurisdictions asking for supplementary reviews which acknowledge the improvements they have
made. To date the Global Forum has conducted 13 supplementary reviews and two more are underway. As
a result of supplementary reviews, six jurisdictions that were previously unable to move to Phase 2 have
been able to progress as the changes introduced to their legislation improved elements critical to exchange
of information.
Level of Compliance
The 79 reviews and 13 supplementary reviews completed so far show that members have a strong
commitment to the standards as well as a good level of compliance with them. However, nearly all peer
reviews to date also show that improvements are needed, with 32 reports concluding that one or more
elements essential for the effective exchange of information are not in place. Where these deficiencies are
serious, the move to the Phase 2 reviews have been put on hold.
Eleven jurisdictions will move to a Phase 2 only when they have addressed deficiencies identified in their
legal and regulatory framework. It is important to emphasise, however, that all member jurisdictions have
committed to using the results of the peer review process to guide changes and improvements. Indeed,
most of the jurisdictions where deficiencies have been identified, including those which have had their
phase 2 assessments postponed, have already started to take action following their assessment and 15
jurisdictions have already completed or requested supplementary reports to reflect these changes. In some
other jurisdictions changes are currently underway. This shows that the process is successful in
encouraging jurisdictions to move towards comprehensive and effective compliance with the standard.
Room for further improvements
While jurisdictions have moved quickly to address the deficiencies identified in their peer reviews, there
remains room for improvement. A number of jurisdictions have been encouraged to speed up their
processes for responding to requests, taken steps to ensure the availability of all relevant ownership and
accounting information, as well as improve their competent authorities’ powers to access information for
exchange of information purposes.
It is important to note that the peer reviews are an on-going and dynamic process. The findings of the
reviews described in this report serve as a guide for jurisdictions towards the implementation of the
international standard and ultimately towards achieving effective information exchange practices.
As it begins the next phase of its work, the Global Forum looks forward to reporting back to the G20 in
2013 and 2014 on the further progress made in achieving a fairer and more transparent tax environment
and in particular on the implementation of the standards in practice.
4
MOVING TO THE NEXT PHASE
JUNE 2012 PROGRESS REPORT TO G20 LEADERS BY THE GLOBAL FORUM ON
TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES2
1. After its Mexico meeting in September 2009, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange
of Information for Tax Purposes reported to the G20 on its restructuring and progress made towards
transparency. At their Seoul meeting in November, 2010, the G20 Leaders invited the Global Forum to
provide another progress report which was delivered at the November, 2011 Cannes Summit. At that
summit, the G20 leaders welcomed the progress made and urged all jurisdictions, particularly those which
did not qualify for a Phase 2 review, to take the necessary actions to tackle the deficiencies identified. In
February 2012 and April 2012, the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors called on the
Global Forum to present to the leaders another report on the progress made in relation to the latest batch of
peer reviews. This progress report represents an update on the work of the Global Forum to date. It also
marks the beginning of the next phase of the Global Forum’s work which will assess jurisdictions’
practical implementation of the international standards for transparency and exchange of information.
2. The Global Forum’s peer review process, established with the support of the G20, has produced
real change. All Global Forum member jurisdictions have committed to implementing the internationally
agreed standard on transparency and exchange of information with hundreds of agreements signed and
many others being negotiated since the London G20 summit. Many members have adopted domestic
legislation to permit effective exchange of information. Membership of the Global Forum has increased
over the last year to 108 member jurisdictions plus the European Union and 9 observers.
3. The rate of change, triggered by the peer reviews, has been very rapid, and many reviewed
jurisdictions have requested a supplementary review to evaluate the steps they have taken to address
recommendations included in their initial review. So far, 15 jurisdictions have undergone, or are
undergoing, supplementary reviews, with 13 reports already having been adopted so far.
4. There is still work to be done and progress to be made by the member jurisdictions and the
Global Forum. The peer reviews are an on-going and dynamic process. The findings of the reviews
described in this report serve as a guide for jurisdictions towards the implementation of international
standard and ultimately towards achieving effective and comprehensive information exchange practices.
5. The peer review process comprises two phases. Phase 1 reviews assess the quality of a
jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory framework for the effective exchange of information, while Phase 2
reviews look at the application of the standards in practice. Some Global Forum members undergo
combined – Phase 1 and Phase 2 – reviews. The Phase 1 reviews are almost complete and the focus is now
on the upcoming Phase 2 reviews. Around 50 of these phase 2 reviews are expected to be completed by the
end of 2013. Through the Phase 2 reviews, the Global Forum will examine whether jurisdictions’
implementation of the international standard is effective in practice. In contrast to Phase 1, one of the
outcomes of Phase 2 review will be to provide overall ratings of jurisdictions’ compliance with the
standards. In order to ensure that application of the ratings system is consistent across jurisdictions, Phase
2 reviews for a subset of jurisdictions representing a geographic and economic cross-section of the Global
Forum will need to be completed before finalising ratings. However, the ultimate goal is to help
2 This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city
or area.
5
jurisdictions to effectively implement the international standards of transparency and exchange of
information for tax purposes and ratings are only one component of this.
Background - The Role of the Global Forum
6. The Global Forum is tasked with promoting the effective implementation of the internationally
agreed standard on transparency and exchange of information.3 It is served by a self-standing, dedicated
Secretariat based within the OECD. The Global Forum has established an in-depth peer review mechanism
to monitor the implementation of the now globally endorsed tax transparency standard. The international
standard to which all Global Forum members have committed is set out in the Terms of Reference and
each peer review assesses the jurisdiction against the ten essential elements which comprise the standard.4
The international standard
7. Exchange of information requires an appropriate legal and regulatory framework to be in place.
In this regard, the peer reviews assess:
the availability of information, in particular accounting, banking, and ownership information;
the access to information and powers to obtain it by the competent authorities, in particular
without regard to bank secrecy or a domestic tax interest requirement, and without hurdles which
would unduly delay information exchange;
whether exchange of information mechanisms (which generally are bilateral agreements, either
Double Tax Conventions (DTCs) or Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs),
multilateral conventions or, more rarely, unilateral domestic legislation) provide for effective
exchange of information.
8. The standard of transparency and exchange of information, which is divided among these three
broad categories (availability, access and exchange of information), are broken down into 10 essential
elements. The purpose of a Phase 1 review is to assess the extent to which a jurisdiction has in place the
elements that would allow it to achieve effective exchange of information. Accordingly, a Phase 1 review
leads to one of the following determinations in respect of each of the 10 essential elements:5
the element is in place;
the element is in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need
improvement; or
3 The internationally agreed standard may be found primarily reflected in the 2002 Model Tax information
Exchange Agreement and its commentary and in Article 26 of the OECD Model Convention and its
commentary as updated in 2004 (and approved by the OECD Council on 15 July 2005). The revisions to
Article 26 aimed at reflecting the work that the Global Forum has done have also been incorporated in
the UN Model Tax Convention. It provides for information exchange on request, where the information is
foreseeably relevant for the administration or assessment of the taxes of the requesting party, regardless
of bank secrecy or a domestic tax interest.
4 See Annex IV describing the Terms of Reference’s 10 essential elements.
5 The 10th element on the timeliness of the information exchange is assessed only in a Phase 2 review.
6
the element is not in place.
9. These determinations are accompanied by recommendations for improvement where necessary.
Where a review reveals that some of the essential elements critical to achieving effective exchange of
information are not in place, the jurisdiction does not proceed to the Phase 2 review until it has acted on
recommendations made in the Phase 1 report.
10. Phase 2 reviews assess the same 10 elements as Phase 1 reviews, except that the reviews assess
information exchange in practice. Each element will receive a rating, ranging from Compliant, to Largely
Compliant, to Partially Compliant to Non Compliant. Based on this assessment, each jurisdiction will also
be assigned an overall rating on its practical implementation of the standard. Though some Phase 2 reviews
are already being conducted, it is expected that they will only begin on a wide scale in the second half of
2012 and ratings will be assigned only after a representative subset of Phase 2 reviews have been
completed.
Quality of Cooperation and Levels of Compliance
Membership
11. The Global Forum has experienced a remarkable level of cooperation that may be seen from the
expansion of its membership base as well as the willingness of members to act on recommendations made
to address deficiencies identified by the peer reviews. The Global Forum now comprises 108 member
jurisdictions, the European Union and 9 observers (see Annex III). In just two and a half years, the Global
Forum has, with the political support of the G20, put in place mechanisms for in-depth peer reviews and
the monitoring of the progress made by its members and non-members. The Global Forum has also
identified seven jurisdictions of relevance to its work6: Botswana, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Ghana, Jamaica, Lebanon, Qatar and Trinidad and Tobago. All jurisdictions identified as such
have now committed to implementing the standard and have joined the Global Forum, except for Lebanon.
Lebanon has nevertheless engaged with the Global Forum and its peer review was completed in June 2012.
Finally, a number of jurisdictions eager to benefit from the new environment of transparency have affirmed
their commitment by becoming members of the Global Forum, Latvia, Lithuania and Tunisia being the
most recent. Several other jurisdictions have expressed their interest to join the Forum, which reflects the
significance and relevance of the work undertaken by the Global Forum.
Review Outcomes
12. So far, the Global Forum has launched 96 peer reviews and adopted 79 reports. Of the 79 reviews
completed, 59 are Phase 1 reviews and 20 are combined reviews (that is, both a Phase 1 and Phase 2
review conducted simultaneously). Another 17 reviews are currently being conducted (4 of which are
combined) and should be completed in 2012.
13. The 79 reports adopted and published by the Global Forum have given rise to 710
determinations. Of the 710 determinations made, 495 elements have been found to be “in place”, 150
elements are “in place, but”, and 65 elements are “not in place”. Overall, a total of 495 recommendations
have been made. As a result of the issues raised during the Phase 1 review, 17 jurisdictions could not
initially move on to a Phase 2 review. In three reviews jurisdictions were found to have two elements not
in place and progress to Phase 2 is subject to conditions.
6 Jurisdictions that may gain a competitive advantage if they do not implement the standard or participate in
the Global Forum.
7
14. Reviewed jurisdictions are expected to report within 6 to 12 months following their review on
how they have addressed any deficiencies to support this process of change. Where a jurisdiction has made
significant progress in addressing deficiencies which were identified in the initial Phase 1 report, the
Global Forum may issue a supplementary Phase 1 report to reflect the progress. To date, 13 supplementary
reviews have been completed7 and another 2 have been launched upon request from the reviewed
jurisdictions.8 Out of the 13 completed supplementary reviews, 7 are of jurisdictions which initially could
not move to Phase 2: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belgium, British Virgin Islands, San Marino,
Seychelles and Turks and Caicos Islands. In each case, the Global Forum approved that the jurisdiction
could now move to a Phase 2 review.
15. Peer reviews of 30 jurisdictions have not yet been completed. Out of these, 17 reviews have
already been launched. Many of these relate to jurisdictions that joined the Global Forum after 2009 and
where the reviews have been scheduled later so that the jurisdictions concerned can better prepare.
Jurisdictions’ overall compliance with the standard
16. The tables below provide a breakdown of the recommendations and determinations that have
been made under the Phase 1 reviews. Table 1 shows the distribution of the recommendations among the
various elements. Table 2 gives a breakdown of the number of jurisdictions by the number of elements not
in place. Table 3 provides a further breakdown of jurisdictions showing the number of elements that are in
place, but needing improvement. As is seen from table 2, out of the first 79 peer reviews, 32 jurisdictions
were found to have one or more element not in place. Out of the remaining 47 jurisdictions, 35 had
elements which needed improvements. Overall, the situation is diverse and requires a fair amount of follow
up from member jurisdictions and monitoring by the Global Forum. A detailed summary of the outcome of
each jurisdiction’s review is in Annex 2.
7 Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Estonia,
Mauritius, Monaco, Qatar, San Marino, Seychelles, and Turks and Caicos Islands.
8 Monaco and Panama.
8
Table 1: Phase 1 recommendations
Table 2: Distribution of jurisdictions based on the number of elements not in place
9
Table 3: Distribution of elements needing improvement for jurisdictions with all elements in place or in place,
but needing improvement
17. In considering the results of the peer reviews it is of paramount importance to consider the
assessments in a dynamic way, given that many jurisdictions have many years of experience of
implementing the standard while others have little or no experience in engaging in effective exchange of
information. Ultimately, the true test of whether the Global Forum is achieving its goal of effective
exchange of information will only be assessed at the end of Phase 2 reviews. Moreover, some jurisdictions
have been scheduled for peer reviews earlier than others, giving them the opportunity to follow up on their
review and to make further progress at the time of the current report.
18. At this stage, the reviews reveal some differences among the jurisdictions, regarding the extent
to which the various elements necessary for effective information exchange are in place. This was to be
expected, since some jurisdictions have a long history of exchange of information, while others have only
started to implement the standard more recently. It is important to emphasise, however, that all member
jurisdictions have committed to using the results of the peer review process to guide changes and
improvements leading to the implementation of the international standard. Indeed, most of the jurisdictions
where deficiencies have been identified have already started to take action and some have requested
supplementary reports to reflect these changes. The following paragraphs summarise the results of the peer
review to date.
19. As can be seen from Table 3 above, there are 12 jurisdictions where all elements are in place with
no significant improvements needed in any of them (Australia, China, France, India, Ireland, Isle of Man,
Italy, Japan, Malta, Norway, Qatar, and the Seychelles). A further 20 jurisdictions will need to improve
one or two elements (Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Cayman Islands, Denmark, Estonia, the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Guernsey, Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Mexico, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Spain, Turks and Caicos, and the United States). Eleven
jurisdictions will have to improve three or four elements (Bahrain, Chile, Curacao, Ghana, Hong Kong
10
China, Jersey, Macao China, the Philippines, San Marino, Singapore and Slovak Republic). Finally, four
jurisdictions will have to improve five elements (Andorra, Aruba, Barbados and Malaysia).
20. Of the jurisdictions where one or more elements were found not to be in place, the peer reviews
reveal the following. With respect to 18 jurisdictions one element was found not to be in place: Antigua
and Barbuda and The Bahamas (availability of accounting information), which do not need to make
significant improvements in any other element; British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat
and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (availability of accounting information), which all need to make
improvements in one other element; Anguilla (availability of accounting information), which needs to
make improvements in two other elements; Luxembourg and Czech Republic (availability of ownership
and identity information), which both need to make improvements in two other elements; the United
Kingdom (access to information), which needs to make improvement in two other elements; Monaco and
Saint Lucia (availability of accounting information), which need to make improvement in three other
elements; Austria (availability of ownership information) which needs to make improvements in four other
elements; Cyprus9and Grenada (availability of accounting information), which need to make improvements
in four other elements; Indonesia (access to information), which needs to make improvements in four other
elements; and Hungary (availability of ownership and identity information), which needs to make
improvements in five other elements.
21. Jamaica was found to have two elements not in place (access to information and exchange of
information mechanisms to the standard) with the need to make improvements in three other elements.
However, Jamaica was found to be able to proceed to its Phase 2 review.
22. In another three cases, jurisdictions were found to have two elements not in place and progress to
Phase 2 is subject to conditions. In the case of Belgium, the initial report identified that two elements were
not in place (access to information and exchange of information mechanisms to the standard), with two
other elements that need improvement Progress to the Phase 2 review was conditional on the
recommendations being addressed. Subsequently, Belgium has put an end to its domestic bank secrecy
meaning that its 70 plus treaties now conform to the international standard. This move has been
acknowledged by the Global Forum and Belgium now has all elements in place (but with improvements
still needed in one element); this is reflected in Belgium’s supplementary report. In the case of
Liechtenstein two elements were found not to be in place (availability of ownership and identity
information and availability of accounting information), with three other elements needing improvement.
Liechtenstein has indicated that it has changed its legislation on accounting requirement and intends to
amend it on some other issues since its Phase 1 review and requested a supplementary report. Finally, in
the case of Switzerland two elements were also found not to be in place (availability of ownership and
identity information and exchange of information mechanisms to the standard), with three other elements
needing improvement. Moving to Phase 2 is conditioned upon bringing a significant number of its EOI
agreements into line with the standard and adoption of an interpretation of all its new treaties in line with
9 Note by Turkey: The reference to « Cyprus » relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single
authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of United Nations,
Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
Note by all the European Union member states of the OECD and the European Commission: The Republic of
Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The reference relates to
the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
11
the international standard. Since its initial report Switzerland indicates that it has adopted bills to address
this issue, concluded further treaties fully in line with the standard, introduced bills to address other
deficiencies and has started negotiating TIEAs.
23. In the case of eleven other jurisdictions (Botswana, Brunei, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Lebanon,
Liberia, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Vanuatu), two or more than
two elements were found to be not in place and it was determined at the time of their Phase 1 reviews that
critical elements necessary to achieving an effective exchange of information were not in place. Therefore
these jurisdictions could not move to Phase 2 review until they act on the recommendations to improve
their legal and regulatory framework. Initially, an additional six jurisdictions (Antigua and Barbuda,
Barbados, the British Virgin Islands, the Seychelles, Turks and Caicos Islands and San Marino) were also
in this category. Each of these six jurisdictions has subsequently introduced improvements that have been
assessed in supplementary reports, and may now move to a Phase 2 review.
24. In the case of Liberia, it was determined that two elements were not in place (availability of
ownership information, and accounting information), with no other elements that need improvement. In
Uruguay, two elements were not in place (availability of ownership information, and a network of
exchange of information with relevant partners), with five more elements that need improvement. In
Trinidad and Tobago, three elements were found not to be in place (power to access information, exchange
of information mechanisms to the standard and a network of exchange of information mechanisms with all
relevant partners), with two other elements that need improvement. In United Arab Emirates, three
elements were found not to be in place (accounting information, power to access information and exchange
of information mechanisms to the standard), with three other elements that need improvement. In Lebanon,
four elements were found not to be in place (availability of ownership information, power to access
information, exchange of information mechanisms to the standard and a network of exchange of
information mechanisms with all relevant partners) and one element that needs improvement. In Vanuatu,
four elements were found not to be in place (accounting information, power to access information,
exchange of information mechanisms that meet the standard, and a network of exchange of information
mechanisms with all relevant partners) and one element that needs improvement. In Guatemala, four
elements were found not to be in place (availability of ownership information, power to access
information, exchange of information mechanisms to the standard, and a network of exchange of
information mechanisms with all relevant partners) and one element that needs improvement. In Botswana
four elements were found not to be in place (access to information, exchange of information mechanisms
to the standard, a network of exchange of information mechanisms with all relevant partners, and measures
to ensure the confidentiality of information exchanged), with two other elements that need improvement.
Brunei, Costa Rica and Panama were each found to have five elements not in place (the availability of
ownership and identity information, accounting information, powers to access information, exchange of
information mechanisms that meet the standard, and a network of exchange of information mechanisms
with all relevant partners), and in Panama’s case one other element needs improvement. In the case of
Panama, a supplementary review has been launched and the action taken by this jurisdiction will be
considered in the supplementary review. Botswana, Brunei, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay have
provided follow-up reports to the Peer Review Group indicating the changes they are each preparing to
make. Follow-up reports are due to be provided by Costa Rica and Guatemala in September 2012, and by
Lebanon, Liberia and United Arab Emirates in December 2012.
Outcomes for the Phase 1 reviews – the deficiencies to be addressed
Recommendations per jurisdiction
25. The following table shows the number of recommendations made under Phase 1 for each of the
reviewed jurisdictions. In addition, it shows the distribution of the recommendations between the various
12
determinations, i.e., how many recommendations are made in respect of elements that are found to be “in
place”, how many where the element is “in place, but needs improvement”, and how many where the
element is “not in place”.
13
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
AndorraAnguilla
Antigua and BarbudaAruba
AustraliaAustria
The BahamasBahrain
BarbadosBelgium
BermudaBotswana
BrazilBrunei
CanadaCayman Islands
ChileChina
Cook IslandsCosta Rica
CuracaoCyprus
Czech RepublicDenmark
EstoniaFrance
FYROMGermany
GhanaGibraltar
GreeceGrenada
GuatemalaGuernsey
Hong Kong, ChinaHungary
IndiaIndonesia
IrelandIsle of Man
ItalyJamaica
JapanJersey
Korea (Republic of)Lebanon
LiberiaLiechtensteinLuxembourg
Macao, ChinaMalaysia
MaltaMauritius
MexicoMonaco
MontserratNetherlands
New ZealandNorwayPanama
PhilippinesQatar
St. Kitts and NevisSt. Lucia
St. Vincent and the GrenadinesSan Marino
The SeychellesSingapore
Slovak RepublicSpain
SwitzerlandTrinidad and Tobago
Turks and CaicosUnited Arab Emirates
United KingdomUnited States
UruguayVanuatu
Virgin Islands (British)
Total recommendations in place
Total recommendations in place but
Total recommendations not in place
Undetermined
14
26. The complete results for the reviews – including the results of supplementary reviews – are in
Annex 2.
Common trends on the legal and regulatory framework
(A) Availability of information
27. While jurisdictions have started addressing deficiencies relating to the availability of information,
there is room for further improvement. The elements relating to the availability of ownership and
accounting information are in place in only 24 (ownership information) and 39 (accounting information)
jurisdictions respectively. The deficiencies identified in these areas have resulted in determining the
element was not in place in 13 cases (ownership information) and 19 cases (accounting information).
These deficiencies have given rise to a total of 224 recommendations (140 for ownership information and
84 for accounting information). In a number of jurisdictions, there are no obligations to maintain
information on offshore activities. In a number of jurisdictions, offshore activities are not covered by any
obligations to ensure the availability of information. Other shortcomings identified include the fact that
bearer shares are a common feature in many jurisdictions. Moreover, nominees are used in some
jurisdictions where deficiencies exist in identifying on behalf of which person a nominee acts. Also, the
obligations to hold identity and accounting information in respect of trusts are not consistently ensured in
legislation. A number of recommendations have been formulated on this issue.
(B) Access to information
28. Access powers granted to competent authorities for exchange of information purposes are
sufficient in most cases with the element found to be not in place in only 12 cases. The main issues are the
retention of a domestic tax interest requirement, a lack of power to access offshore business information,
and domestic restrictions on access to bank information. In particular, the Global Forum has clearly stated
that jurisdictions should not insist on being provided with the name and address of the taxpayers for a
foreseeably relevant request to be satisfied, provided the taxpayer can be identified through other means.
Jurisdictions where such a restriction has been identified are introducing new legislation or amending their
treaties to bring them into line with the standard.
(C) Exchange of Information Mechanisms
29. The key deficiencies identified in respect of jurisdictions’ exchange of information mechanisms
are in relation to not having the legislation in place to give legal effect to these mechanisms (e.g. arising
from deficiencies in the competent authority’s access powers) and not completing the necessary ratification
procedures to bring the signed exchange of information agreements into force. Action has already been
reported in a number of jurisdictions to fix this problem, as shown in the case of Belgium (legislation
passed to allow all existing treaties to meet the standard), the British Virgin Islands, San Marino and Turks
and Caicos Islands (with clearer access powers granted to the competent authority). Maintaining the
confidentiality of information exchanged and the existence of sufficient rights and safeguards for taxpayers
are pre-requisites to ensure that information can be exchanged safely. These elements have been found to
be in place in almost all the Global Forum members reviewed so far.
30. As regards the size and relevance of the treaty networks, major progress has been made with
more than 800 tax information exchange agreements and DTCs signed since 2008. Globally, there are only
a few cases where a request to negotiate an information exchange agreement has not been responded to
positively. While some jurisdictions continue to resist concluding tax information exchange agreements
because their policy is only to agree to DTCs – whilst the standard requires jurisdictions to enter into
exchange of information agreements regardless of their form – the number is declining with some members
15
having committed to change their policies in respect of concluding TIEAs and have brought in laws to
implement this policy.
Common trends on combined reviews
31. A total of 20 jurisdictions have undergone combined reviews of both their legal and regulatory
frameworks for exchange of information (Phase 1) as well as their ability to exchange information in
practice (Phase 2). The Phase 1 aspects of these reviews are included in the analysis above. In terms of the
Phase 2 aspects, no ratings have yet been assigned by the Global Forum. Nonetheless, recommendations on
the Phase 2 aspects have been made where appropriate. The main finding so far in several cases has been
that information exchange is too slow and jurisdictions need to take steps to expedite the process.
The effectiveness of information exchange
32. The experience of the Global Forum peer reviews shows that the best way to guarantee effective
implementation is through a rigorous peer review and follow up process. In order to ensure the
effectiveness of information exchange, jurisdictions need to address the deficiencies identified in the
course of the Phase 1 reviews. They also need to put in place competent authority units able to process the
requests so that information exchange takes place in a timely manner. It is interesting to note that all
jurisdictions have progress to make in this area as delays are experienced across the board, including in
those jurisdictions which have a long-standing practice in tax cooperation.
33. One of the outcomes of the Bermuda Global Forum meeting was an agreement to facilitate a
meeting of competent authorities so that there is an opportunity to come together and exchange views on
issues they have encountered and best practices for ensuring effective exchange of information in practice.
In May 2012, the first meeting of competent authorities was held in Madrid. Participants from 78
competent authorities exchanged views on practical issues such as how to build up good working
relationships with EOI partners and how to ensure the confidentiality of information exchanged, as well as
on best practices that will assist in ensuring effective exchange of information. Effective exchange of
information is about cooperation, and these meetings promote greater contact, interaction and dialogue
between the officials in charge of making sure the standard is implemented.
Countering the Erosion of Developing Jurisdictions’ Tax Bases
34. As part of the Seoul Multi-Year Action Plan on Development, the G20 Leaders requested the
Global Forum to "enhance its work to counter the erosion of developing countries’ tax bases and, in
particular, to highlight in its report the relationship between the work on non-cooperative jurisdictions and
development". The G20 asked that the results be reported for the occasion of the G20 Cannes Summit in
November 2011. This report was adopted by the Global Forum in August 2011 and was delivered to the
Development Working Group and the G20 Presidency early in September 2011. The report proposes
concrete short and medium-term actions to ensure that developing jurisdictions can benefit from the Global
Forum’s work and have the training and expertise necessary to fully implement the international standard.
35. Since that report was delivered, two year pilot projects aimed at providing in-depth technical
assistance to Ghana and Kenya to help them implement the international standards have been launched in
cooperation with the World Bank and with support from the UK’s Department for Overseas Development.
In the case of Ghana the German Development Co-operation is also supporting the work. Already, experts
from the Global Forum Secretariat have visited both countries and agreed project plans for this work with
Ghana’s and Kenya’s officials. Representatives of both Ghana and Kenya have also participated in Global
Forum training events.
16
36. In order to facilitate the coordination of technical assistance in the areas covered by the Global
Forum, a Coordination Platform to enhance cooperation with international organisations and development
agencies was launched in February of 2012. This is a secure website which can be used by international
organisations and development agencies to identify jurisdictions that need assistance, to locate partners for
their own assistance activities and to promote awareness of upcoming events and training seminars related
to tax transparency and exchange of information.
Supporting the work of the Global Forum: Training, Outreach and Advisory Services
37. The Global Forum also continues to develop its training and advisory services in conjunction
with other international organisations. Commencing in 2011 with a 3-day seminar in Jamaica, the Global
Forum has provided a series of training courses to prepare jurisdictions for their peer reviews. The
seminars are fundamental to developing an appreciation of the requirements of the international standard,
particularly for those jurisdictions which may have had limited historical involvement in the Global Forum.
To date these seminars have been regionally focused: with courses in the Caribbean, Asian and African
regions all of which were organised in cooperation with the World Bank. The Global Forum Secretariat
also provides or participates in training activities focussed on particular member jurisdictions – most
recently in a technical seminar in Jamaica in March 2012 organised by CIAT to assist Jamaica implement
the standards.
38. The Global Forum Secretariat provides on-going training courses to assessors. The training
covers a variety of topics including a detailed analysis of the Terms of Reference and the essential
elements that a jurisdiction should have in place, the role and responsibilities of assessors as well as how to
apply the Assessment Criteria. These and other topics are presented with a strong emphasis on group
discussions of practical examples that an assessor may be faced with when conducting a review.
39. The first training session was held in Paris in March 2010. A second session was hosted at the
Commonwealth Secretariat in London in October 2010 and generally 2 - 3 courses will be given each year.
The latest training session took place in January 2012 in Buenos Aires. In order to ensure that assessors
from all members of the Global Forum have the opportunity to attend the assessor training courses, a
number of courses will be organized in important regional centres within the Global Forum’s membership.
40. In addition, the Global Forum may provide advisory services to assessed jurisdictions when
needed. For instance, advice may be requested regarding preparations for peer reviews, and in
implementing recommendations made during the course of a review including analysing aspects of a
jurisdiction’s legal framework such as draft legislation. Since early 2011 to end May 2012, in the course of
peer reviews, the Secretariat has responded to 36 requests for advisory assistance from 41 member
jurisdictions.
The Next Phase
41. In just two and a half years, the Global Forum has established itself as the largest international
tax grouping in the world with 109 members and has completed peer reviews of the vast majority of those
members. As a result of its work, many jurisdictions have improved their legal and regulatory
infrastructure for transparency and exchange of information in tax matters and others are in the process of
doing so. As it comes towards the end of its first mandate, members’ attention will now turn to the next
stage of the work which are the Phase 2 reviews. These focus on the application of the standards in
practice. Ultimately the real test of whether the Global Forum has achieved its goal is whether it has
improved transparency and made exchange of information more effective in practice. This can only be
determined at the end of the Phase 2 reviews. The challenge now is to build on the success that has already
17
been achieved to enhance tax cooperation in practice throughout the world. The Global Forum, with the
strong support of the G20, and other international partners, looks forward to this challenge.
18
ANNEX I: G20 SUPPORT FOR THE GLOBAL FORUM’S WORK ON TRANSPARENCY AND
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Declaration, April 2012
“We reiterate our call upon all countries to join the Global Forum on transparency and to sign on the
Multilateral Convention on Mutual Assistance. We look forward to an interim report by the OECD for the
Los Cabos Summit on progress made and on a new set of reviews and on necessary steps to improve
comprehensive information exchange.”
G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Declaration, February 2012
“We look forward to a report to our Leaders by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of
Information on progress made and on a new set of reviews. We call upon all countries to join the Global
Forum on transparency and to sign on the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Assistance. We call for an
interim report and update by the OECD on necessary steps to improve comprehensive information
exchange, including automatic exchange of information and, together with the FATF, on steps taken to
prevent the misuse of corporate vehicles and improve interagency cooperation in the fight against illicit
activities.”
G20 leaders’ Declaration, November 2011
“In the tax area, we welcome the progress made and we urge all the jurisdictions to take the necessary
actions to tackle the deficiencies identified in the course of the reviews by the Global Forum, in particular
the 11 jurisdictions identified by the Global Forum whose framework has failed to qualify. We underline
the importance of comprehensive tax information exchange and encourage work in the Global Forum to
define the means to improve it.”
G20 Finance Ministers’ Communiqué, February 2011
“We welcome the 18 peer reviews issued by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of
Information and urge all jurisdictions so far identified as not having the elements in place to achieve an
effective exchange of information to promptly address the weaknesses. We look forward to the progress
report by November 2011, based on the expected completion of around 60 phase 1 reviews, to address in
particular the jurisdictions' quality of cooperation with the Forum, level of compliance and unsolved
deficiencies. We call upon more jurisdictions to join the Global Forum and to commit to implementing the
standard. We urge all jurisdictions to extend further their networks of Tax Information Exchange
Agreements and encourage jurisdictions to consider signing the Multilateral Convention on Mutual
Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.”
19
ANNEX II Phase 1 reviews
THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES – PHASE 1 (LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK)
Availability of Information Access to Information Exchange of Information
Jurisdiction Type of Review A1 – Ownership
A2 - Accounting
A3 – Bank
B1 – Access Power
B2 – Rights and Safeguards
C1 – EOI instruments
C2 – Network of Agreements
C3 – Confidentiality
C4 – Rights and Safeguards
C5 –Timely EOI
Move to Phase 2
1 Andorra Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
2 Anguilla Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
3 Antigua and Barbuda
Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place Not in place
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
4 Aruba Phase 1 In place, but
In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
5 Australia Combined In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
6 Austria Phase 1 Not in place
In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
7 The Bahamas Phase 1 In place Not in place
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
8 Bahrain Phase 1 In place In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
9 Barbados Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
10 Belgium Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
11 Bermuda Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
The element is “in place”.
The element is “in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement”.
The element is “not in place”.
20
THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES – PHASE 1 (LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK)
Availability of Information Access to Information Exchange of Information
Jurisdiction Type of Review A1 – Ownership
A2 - Accounting
A3 – Bank
B1 – Access Power
B2 – Rights and Safeguards
C1 – EOI instruments
C2 – Network of Agreements
C3 – Confidentiality
C4 – Rights and Safeguards
C5 –Timely EOI
Move to Phase 2
12 Botswana Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place Not in place
In place Not in place Not in place Not in place In place Not assessed
No
13 Brazil Phase 1 In place In place In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
14 Brunei Phase 1 Not in place
Not in place
In place Not in place
In place Not in place Not in place In place In place Not assessed
No
15 Canada Combined In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
16 Cayman Islands
Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
17 Chile Phase 1 In place, but
In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
18 China Combined In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
19 Cook Islands
Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
20 Costa Rica Phase 1 Not in place
Not in place
In place Not in place
In place Not in place Not in place In place In place Not assessed
No
21 Curacao Phase 1 In place, but
In place In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
22 Cyprus Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
23 Czech Republic
Phase 1 Not in place
In place In place In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place, but
Not assessed
Yes
24 Denmark Combined In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
25 Estonia Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place, but In place Not assessed
Yes
The element is “in place”.
The element is “in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement”.
The element is “not in place”.
21
THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES – PHASE 1 (LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK)
Availability of Information Access to Information Exchange of Information
Jurisdiction Type of Review
A1 – Ownership
A2 - Accounting
A3 – Bank
B1 – Access Power
B2 – Rights and Safeguards
C1 – EOI instruments
C2 – Network of Agreements
C3 – Confidentiality
C4 – Rights and Safeguards
C5 –Timely EOI
Move to Phase 2
26 France Combined In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
27 FYROM Phase 1 In place In place In place In place In place, but
In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
28 Germany Combined In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
29 Ghana Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
30 Gibraltar Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
31 Greece Combined In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
32 Grenada Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
33 Guatemala Phase 1 Not in place
In place In place Not in place
In place, but
Not in place Not in place In place In place Not assessed
No
34 Guernsey Phase 1 In place In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
35 Hong Kong, China
Phase 1 In place, but
In place In place In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
36 Hungary Phase 1 Not in place
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place, but
Not assessed
Yes
37 India Phase 1 In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
38 Indonesia Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place Not in place
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
39 Ireland Combined in place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
The element is “in place”.
The element is “in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement”.
The element is “not in place”.
22
THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES – PHASE 1 (LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK)
Availability of Information Access to Information Exchange of Information
Jurisdiction Type of Review A1 – Ownership
A2 - Accounting
A3 – Bank
B1 – Access Power
B2 – Rights and Safeguards
C1 – EOI instruments
C2 – Network of Agreements
C3 – Confidentiality
C4 – Rights and Safeguards
C5 –Timely EOI
Move to Phase 2
40 Isle of Man Combined In place In place In place
In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
41 Italy Combined In place In place In place
In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
42 Japan Combined In place In place In place
In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
43 Jamaica Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place
Not in place
In place, but
Not in place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
44 Jersey Combined In place In place, but
In place
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place In place In place Not assessed
-
45 Korea, Republic of
Combined In place, but
In place In place
In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
46 Lebanon Phase 1 Not in place
In place, but
In place
Not in place
In place Not in place Not in place In place In place Not assessed
No
47 Liberia Phase 1 Not in place
Not in place
In place
In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
No
48 Liechtenstein Phase 1 Not in place
Not in place
In place
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Conditional
49 Luxembourg Phase 1 Not in place
In place In place
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
50 Macao, China Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place
In place In place In place In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
51 Malaysia Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
52 Malta Phase 1 In place In place In place
In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
53 Mauritius Combined + Supplementary
In place, but
In place, but
In place
In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
The element is “in place”.
The element is “in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement”.
The element is “not in place”.
23
THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES – PHASE 1 (LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK)
Availability of Information Access to Information Exchange of Information
Jurisdiction Type of Review A1 – Ownership
A2 - Accounting
A3 – Bank
B1 – Access Power
B2 – Rights and Safeguards
C1 – EOI instruments
C2 – Network of Agreements
C3 – Confidentiality
C4 – Rights and Safeguards
C5 –Timely EOI
Move to Phase 2
54 Mexico Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
55 Monaco Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
Not in place
In place In place In place, but
In place In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
56 Montserrat Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
57 Netherlands Combined In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
58 New Zealand
Combined In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
59 Norway Combined In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
60 Panama Phase 1 Not in place
Not in place
In place Not in place
In place Not in place Not in place In place In place, but
Not assessed
No
61 Philippines Phase 1 In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
62 Qatar Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
63 St. Kitts and Nevis
Phase 1 In place In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
64 St. Lucia Phase 1 In place Not in place
In place In place, but
In place In place, but
In place In place In place, but
Not assessed
Yes
65 St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
66 San Marino Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place In place In place In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
The element is “in place”.
The element is “in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement”.
The element is “not in place”.
24
THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES – PHASE 1 (LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK)
Availability of Information Access to Information Exchange of Information
Jurisdiction Type of Review A1 – Ownership
A2 - Accounting
A3 – Bank
B1 – Access Power
B2 – Rights and Safeguards
C1 – EOI instruments
C2 – Network of Agreements
C3 – Confidentiality
C4 – Rights and Safeguards
C5 –Timely EOI
Move to Phase 2
67 The Seychelles
Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
68 Singapore Phase 1 In place In place In place In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Yes
69 Slovak Republic
Phase 1 In place, but
In place In place In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place, but
Not assessed
Yes
70 Spain Combined In place In place In place In place In place In place In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
-
71 Switzerland Phase 1 Not in place
In place In place In place, but
In place, but
Not in place In place, but
In place In place Not assessed
Conditional
72 Trinidad and Tobago
Phase 1 In place, but
In place In place Not in place
In place, but
Not in place Not in place In place In place Not assessed
No
73 Turks and Caicos
Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
74 United Arab Emirates
Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place Not in place
In place Not in place In place, but
In place In place, but
Not assessed
No
75 United Kingdom
Combined In place, but
In place In place Not in place
In place In place, but
In place In place In place Not assessed
-
76 United States
Combined In place, but
In place, but
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
-
77 Uruguay Phase 1 Not in place
In place, but
In place In place, but
In place, but
In place, but
Not in place In place In place, but
Not assessed
No
78 Vanuatu Phase 1 In place, but
Not in place
In place Not in place
Not assessed
Not in place Not in place In place In place Not assessed
No
79 Virgin Islands (British)
Phase 1 + Supplementary
In place, but
Not in place
In place In place In place In place In place In place In place Not assessed
Yes
The element is “in place”.
The element is “in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement”.
The element is “not in place”.
25
ANNEX III MEMBERS OF THE GLOBAL FORUM
ANDORRA GIBRALTAR NIGERIA
ANGUILLA GREECE NIUE
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA GRENADA NORWAY
ARGENTINA GUATEMALA PANAMA
ARUBA GUERNSEY PHILIPPINES
AUSTRALIA HONG KONG, CHINA POLAND
AUSTRIA HUNGARY PORTUGAL
THE BAHAMAS ICELAND QATAR
BAHRAIN INDIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION
BARBADOS INDONESIA SAMOA
BELGIUM IRELAND SAN MARINO
BELIZE ISLE OF MAN SAUDI ARABIA
BERMUDA ISRAEL SEYCHELLES
BOTSWANA ITALY SINGAPORE
BRAZIL JAMAICA SLOVAK REPUBLIC
BRUNEI JAPAN SLOVENIA
CANADA JERSEY SOUTH AFRICA
CAYMAN ISLANDS KENYA SPAIN
CHILE KOREA ST. KITTS AND NEVIS
CHINA LATVIA ST. LUCIA
COLOMBIA LIBERIA ST. MAARTEN
COOK ISLANDS LIECHTENSTEIN ST. VINCENT AND THE
GRENADINES
COSTA RICA LITHUANIA SWEDEN
CURACAO LUXEMBOURG SWITZERLAND
CYPRUS MACAU, CHINA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
CZECH REPUBLIC MALAYSIA TUNISIA
DENMARK MALTA TURKEY
DOMINICA MARSHALL ISLANDS TURKS AND CAICOS
EL SALVADOR MAURITANIA UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
ESTONIA MAURITIUS UNITED KINGDOM
EUROPEAN UNION MEXICO UNITED STATES
FINLAND MONACO URUGUAY
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF
MACEDONIA
MONTSERRAT VANUATU
26
FRANCE MOROCCO VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH
GEORGIA NAURU VIRGIN ISLANDS, USA
GERMANY NETHERLANDS
GHANA NEW ZEALAND
June 2012
Observers of the Global Forum
Asian Development Bank International Finance Corporation
Commonwealth Secretariat International Monetary Fund
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development United Nations
European Investment Bank World Bank
Inter-American Development Bank
27
ANNEX IV: THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Phase 1 reviews will assess the quality of a jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory framework for the exchange
of information, while Phase 2 reviews will look at the practical operation of that framework. These reviews
are based on the Terms of Reference, which break the international standard down into 10 essential
elements.
Box 1. THE 10 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES
A AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
A.1. Jurisdictions should ensure that ownership and identity information for all relevant
entities and arrangements is available to their competent authorities.
A.2. Jurisdictions should ensure that reliable accounting records are kept for all relevant
entities and arrangements.
A.3. Banking information should be available for all account-holders.
B ACCESS TO INFORMATION
B.1. Competent authorities should have the power to obtain and provide information that is
the subject of a request under an EOI agreement from any person within their territorial jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information.
B.2. The rights and safeguards that apply to persons in the requested jurisdiction should
be compatible with effective exchange of information.
C EXCHANGING INFORMATION
C.1. EOI mechanisms should provide for effective exchange of information.
C.2. The jurisdictions’ network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all
relevant partners.
C.3. The jurisdictions’ mechanisms for exchange of information should have adequate
provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information received.
C.4. The exchange of information mechanisms should respect the rights and safeguards of
taxpayers and third parties.
C.5. The jurisdiction should provide information under its network of agreements in a timely
manner.
28
ANNEX V: SCHEDULE OF REVIEWS
1. At its meeting in Mexico on 1-2 September 2009, the Global Forum decided on a three-year
mandate with the possibility, if needed, to extend it, aimed at monitoring and peer review of its members
and other relevant jurisdictions based on the Global Forum standards of transparency and information
exchange for tax purposes. This was reiterated by the Global Forum at its meeting in Paris on 25-26
October 2011 which agreed to extend the Global Forum’s current mandate until the end of 2015.
2. The Global Forum also established a Peer Review Group (PRG) to develop the methodology and
detailed terms of reference for the peer review process and agreed that “there will be two phases for the
peer review”. Phase 1 will examine the legal and regulatory framework in each jurisdiction whereas
Phase 2 will evaluate the implementation of the standards in practice. It was also agreed that all
jurisdictions would be reviewed under Phase 1 during the first mandate, which is not necessarily the case
for Phase 2.
3. The attached schedule of reviews is based on the guidelines set out below.
4. The schedule attempts to balance a number of considerations and no inference should be drawn
about a particular jurisdiction from the timing of the reviews. All members of the Global Forum will
ultimately be reviewed under both Phase 1 and Phase 2. In some cases where jurisdictions have a long
standing commitment to the Global Forum standards, an adequate treaty network and a history of exchange
of information with other jurisdictions, a combined Phase 1-2 review has been scheduled. Moreover, a
number of jurisdictions have volunteered for a combined Phase 1-2 review to be scheduled. However, not
all jurisdictions which might prefer and be suitable for combined Phase 1-2 have been scheduled for such
combined reviews because of resources issues.
5. The following factors were taken into account in developing the schedule:
Achieving a regional balance, a balance between OECD and non OECD reviews over the period
of the mandate and a balance between those that committed to the standard early and those that
have made more recent commitments.
Jurisdictions lacking exchange of information agreements have been scheduled later for Phase 2
reviews as they do not have sufficient experience in implementing the standard in practice.
The schedule takes into account exceptional circumstances so as not to overburden jurisdictions
which would undergo other peer reviews around the same time (for instance FATF).
Jurisdictions which are not members of the Global Forum but are considered to be relevant to be
reviewed have been scheduled early for Phase 1 reviews.
6. Note that the schedule is provisional, particularly as relates to Phase 2 reviews, and may need to
be adjusted to take account of circumstances as they arise.
29
ANNEX V: SCHEDULE OF REVIEWS
2010 2011
1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half 2nd Half
Australia Canada Belgium Bahrain Anguilla Andorra Chile Cook Islands
Barbados Denmark France Estonia Antigua and Barbuda Brazil China Czech Republic
Bermuda Germany Isle of Man Guernsey Turks and Caicos Brunei Costa Rica Grenada
Botswana India Italy Hungary Austria Hong Kong, China
Cyprus Liberia
Cayman Islands Jamaica Liechtenstein Japan British Virgin Islands Macao, China Gibraltar Malta
Ghana Jersey New Zealand Philippines Indonesia Malaysia Greece Russian Federation
Ireland Monaco San Marino Singapore Luxembourg Spain Guatemala Saint Lucia
Mauritius Panama Saudi Arabia Switzerland Netherlands United Arab Emirates
Korea Slovak Republic
Norway Seychelles The Bahamas Aruba Curaçao Uruguay Mexico South Africa
Qatar Trin. and Tobago United States United Kingdom
Saint Kitts and Nevis Vanuatu Montserrat St. Vincent and the Gren.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Sint Maarten
Lebanon
Phase 1 review
Phase 2 review
Combined reviews
30
2012 2013 2014
1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half
Samoa Turkey Belgium British Virgin Islands
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Malaysia Anguilla Andorra Belize Czech Republic
Argentina Portugal Bermuda Austria Estonia Samoa Antigua and Barbuda
Botswana Dominica Gibraltar
Belize Finland Cayman Islands
Hong Kong, China
Jamaica Slovak Republic
Chile Ghana Marshall Islands
Hungary
Dominica Sweden Cyprus India Philippines Slovenia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Grenada Nauru Curaçao
Israel Iceland Guernsey Liechtenstein Turks and Caicos
U. S. Virgin Islands
Costa Rica Israel Niue Poland
Marshall Islands
Slovenia Malta Luxembourg United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu Guatemala Liberia Saudi Arabia Sint Maarten
Nauru Qatar Monaco Barbados Indonesia Mexico Russian Federation
Cook Islands El Salvador
Niue San Marino Panama Brunei Colombia Montserrat Saint Kitts and Nevis
Portugal Mauritania
Poland Brazil Singapore Switzerland Macao, China
Georgia Trinidad and Tobago
Saint Lucia Uruguay Morocco
US Virgin Islands
Seychelles The Bahamas
Lithuania Nigeria Latvia St. Vincent and the Gren.
Aruba
Kenya Lebanon
Phase 1 review
Phase 2 review
Combined reviews